From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 16 03:37:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA24368 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 03:37:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA24353 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 03:37:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA09075; Sat, 16 May 1998 10:37:43 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA01459; Sat, 16 May 1998 12:37:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980516123741.53851@follo.net> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 12:37:41 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Bob Bishop , Julian Elischer Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Soft update vs noatime References: <354E9212.500F9F30@whistle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Bob Bishop on Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 10:42:50AM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any reason not to use noatime with soft updates? Previously it changed some graphs, which broke soft updates. I don't know if that is fixed - personally, I'm not certain it need to be fixed, as writing the atime should be much less noticable with soft updates. We will of course need to deny noatime on a soft updated filesystem Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message